Big Frick Dot Com » energy

Global Warming Where The Sun Don’t Shine

Big Frick — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:42:00 +0000

I hate when the doctor puts on the glove.

Any guy over the age of about 30 with a prostate knows exactly what’s coming next. Hold your breath, grab the backside of the examination table and hope that it’s over quickly. It’s never over quick enough and at least I have never even gotten a dinner out of the deal.

It’s one of those things you just endure. I get the same feeling of dreaded anticipation every time I read another story about the immanent destruction of the planet due to manmade global warming. And boy, the news wires are jammed to hilt with one story after another of how we are all going to hell in a handbasket due to melting ice flows and rising sea levels.

With each new report more dire then the previous one and every conceivable attempt made to tie global warming to some natural disaster it has become apparent that thar’s gold in them thar carbon footprints.

Penn State University just published a report that the entire continent of Antarctica is warming at the same rate as the rest of the planet, disagreeing with all previous reports that showed otherwise. This report was dutifully covered by the journal Nature in its January 21st issue.

The key to this study is that it was funded by the National Science Foundation, a foundation that just received over $3 billion in new funding in the presidents non-stimulus spending package.

The study which was set up to prove exactly what it proved is not based on any new information or scientific data. The study simply used the existing data, which in some cases is only for the last 25 years, and redid the math so that the calculations showed warming rather than cooling. It than made assumptions on the data collected and extrapolated it out to say that it covered 50 years, which is actually twice as long as some of the data covered.

Headlines claimed that sea levels are rising faster than ever, reporting on a story from the National Center for Space Studies in France. My first thought is why does France have a National Center for Space Studies and why the hell are they studying sea levels. But regardless of my skepticism, the study claims that sea levels are rising twice as fast as was originally thought. It is only later that it is explained that the study is comparing data from only the last 15 years and comparing it to data from the 50 years prior. Once again it ignores the rules of long term data collection and also uses two completely different measuring systems and then extrapolates the data to come out this way.

The Carnegie Institute of Science, which also operates on government grants and focused corporate contributions, reported that carbon emissions have been growing by 3.5% since 2000 versus the 0.9% reported in the 1990’s. The study places the blame for this 400% increase squarely in the use of coal. It goes on to claim that because of these increased emissions no part of the world has experienced any reduction in temperature since the year 2000. The report once again uses extrapolated data to come up with a mathematical formula that proves this point. The only problem with the conclusion of the math is that it does not coincide with the actual temperature readings of thermometers.

All of these studies have one thing in common. They were all funded by either government grants or by industries that stand to benefit greatly by the results. It’s like the recent conversion of oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens who is now investing heavily in alternative energy. He claims that his research shows oil will be back over $150 per barrel from its current $35 per barrel within two years. He uses that as a reason to invest in alternative energy. My question is, if he truly believes that, why wouldn’t he invest in oil again and make a freaking killing? The answer is simple. There is more money to be made by the sham that is global warming than by the reality and uncertainty of commodity prices and option trading.

Ireland’s Environmental Minister recently put a ban on the television broadcast of the British government’s advertisements claiming global warming calling them “insidious propaganda”.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that “Environmentalism and global warming alarmism is challenging our very freedom” he went on to say that he didn’t see any statistical data that proved any of the claims of global warming, in fact the data showed otherwise. “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.”

The global warming industry has a firm grip on the media and allows no room for dissention. Any report or data that even remotely disproves some if the mathematical profiles created to support the warming claims are banished and held in complete contempt without any chance for rebuttal.

The scientific community knows how to get its bread buttered and they will be damned if they let a few facts put them on a diet.

That’s why at the 175th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held in Chicago recently many of the topics were directly related to global warming and the research dollars involved.

Bud Ward from Yale University and Pallab Ghosh of the BBC discussed the increased need for scientific expertise in the growing newsroom coverage of global warming in a variety of areas including political coverage, economic coverage and even entertainment angles.

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist from Stanford University, urged scientists to be less equivocal in conversations with reporters to avoid any appearance that there is not a complete scientific consensus on the issue of global warming, regardless of the report data.

After Jeremy Jackson from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography discussed how eating tuna is immoral, Mark Serezze from the University of Colorado discussed the accelerating degree to which the polar ice caps are melting. Obviously Mr. Serezze spoke before the recent report showing that the data showing the acceleration has been proven false due to a recently discovered drifting in the satellite aiming used to collect the data, although I doubt it would have changed his dire warnings of global destruction and the need for additional funding for research.

A seminar was given on how global warming is causing us to become fat by forcing us to eat more soft food. This increases not only body fat but also amino acid production causing oddly shaped skulls. It was only later that it was revealed the study was done on Burmese pythons.

But probably the best science was saved for the ever expanding lore of Charles Darwin who was celebrating his 200th birthday.

Darwin’s research was unbelievably expanded as a means of justification for scientists that touted Darwinism in their studies on diet, agriculture, feminism, morality and Natural Security where evolutionary biology was used as a means of increased national security.

But my favorite scientific report came from Daniel Blumstein of UCLA who talked about how we as a nation can improve our national security through the study of marmots. “You can’t stay in your burrow all the time” he said.

When it comes to this absurd display of cash for results science and the fact that the cash is coming out of my pocket, my burrow sounds like the place I want to be. And if I come out and see my shadow it means another 10 years of global warming.

I have the data to back that up.

Big Trouble for Big Frick

Big Frick — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:00:00 +0000

Let me start by saying that I never won a blue ribbon at the grade school science fair. Usually whatever lame excuse I was able to assemble the night before the event and put proudly on display in the school gymnasium was good enough for a prominent place somewhere in the middle of the pack. It wasn’t until later in life that I developed a real interest in science. I marvel at many of the scientific breakthroughs and new cutting edge discoveries. I am equally agog at some of the remarkably dumb things that pass as science or conservation now days.

What I am about to say will definitely get me in hot water with my eldest child. My beloved first born has been a close friend to mother earth her whole life. I can remember when she was a young girl her refusal to eat a McDonald’s hamburger because they were using a particular container that would end life as we know it across the length and breadth of the planet. This was at a time when she really liked McDonald’s, so this protest was by no means a small deal for this small fry. I don’t know if it was because sales slumped at the Golden Arches due to the bad publicity or if they discovered they could increase their profit margin by switching back to paper wrapping, but eventually they removed the offending Styrofoam containers and all was forgiven. Either way it satisfied my little environmentalist. She grew up to be an adult environmentalist and makes her living today in renewable energy. That’s why it’s so tough for me to come right out and say………..………………….I think global warming would be freaking great if it were only true and most of the energy conservation proposals being presented as green measures to save the planet are actually nothing more then revenue enhancements. There I said it, and possibly put in jeopardy any chance of a really nice Fathers Day present.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe there are any number of good reasons to conserve energy and be a responsible earthling, the main one being saving some dough. But saving the planet is not one of them. It’s not like I’m some frenetic litter bug that throws my garbage out the car window and makes an Italian actor dressed up like an American Indian cry. I won’t even throw a gum wrapper out the window. But it’s not because I don’t think this old globe can fend for herself. It’s because it would make me an irresponsible slob. Most of the so called green measures being boldly or subliminally pitched today are truly designed to help somebody either make money or save money.

The hotel industry was one of the first to pitch the “green” idea years ago. As soon as they figured out that they could save a few bucks by not supplying clean towels every day they printed up the little fliers that show Bambi standing in a clear mountain stream with the request that in order to assist them in conserving water I should be willing to reuse my towels. Heads up Holiday Inn, but when I check into my $189.00 per night room that smells like somebody crapped under the bed your water conservation becomes less of a concern. I get how it can save them money, I just don’t get how it will conserve water. When you wash my towels the water you use doesn’t change its molecular structure to become something different. All it becomes is dirty water. And when I say dirty, it’s probably still cleaner then the water Bambi has her hooves in and Smokey The Bear uses as his toilet. The dirty water from your washing machine is sent back to the filtration plant where it came from in the first place and is transformed into…..TAAAADAAAA….clean water.

I have two garbage cans at home, one for throw away garbage and one for recyclable garbage. The rules are all paper, glass, plastic and aluminum goes into the recycle can after it gets washed of any debris. Allow me to repeat, the hotel wants me to save water by not requesting clean towels but the garbage company insists that I wash my garbage before putting it in the can. Am I the only one that shakes his head at this stuff?

The corporate accounting green mentality has spread through a number of industries. Ten years ago any environmentalist worth his course ground sea salt wouldn’t have made pee-pee on a lumber company executive if he was on fire. But now they walk hand in hand singing “Kumbaya” because the lumber industry is now promoting themselves as renewable.

Everywhere you look product packaging is carrying the ‘green” symbol indicating the corporate concern for the environment. The product inside the package is exactly the same as it was before, the process to make it is also the same. If there was any truth in advertising instead of the “green” symbol they should have used the dollar symbol.

It wasn’t always like that. I am certain that the environmentally minded folks truly believe in their “green” lifestyle. I know my daughter does. But the “green” that they’re talking about and the “green” that corporate America is talking about are two completely different greens. And that’s OK. If the margin enhancement sought by companies going green happens to be a benefit to the environment all the better.

Renewable energy is a huge and growing business. Solar, wind and geothermal are all becoming big business. I have been familiar with solar power since I was a kid. I was reminded of this when I read a piece about a solar powered clothes dryer. Its cost was only $99.00. If you were dim enough to send in the money what you received was a clothes line and some clothes pins. Now there’s some truth in advertising for ya. I understand the interest in wind power if you happen to be on the Nina, the Pinta or the Santa Maria, but to use it to reliably generate enough power to light a metropolitan area is another story. With wind power you always need a plan B in case the wind stops blowing. It will never, I repeat never, be cost effective to depend on the changing weather, either wind or solar, as the main source for your electricity. Unless you can power an HD plasma screen TV with a kerosene lamp when the sun goes down and the wind changes. Figure out a way to make tee shirts or water bottles out of spent nuclear rods and then you’ve got something.

As for global warming, let me just say that I played golf in Northern Illinois on November 5th when it was about 72 degrees. Two days later it is in the mid 30’s. I would be out in the back yard right now burning Styrofoam cups and spraying copious amounts of aerosol if I thought it would cancel out the impending doom of winter. Not far from my house construction workers uncovered the bones of a Wooly Mammoth. Eager scientists descended on the area to complete the dig and recover the skeleton. They explained that the entire area was once covered by a thick layer of ice. Unless McDonald’s has been around longer then I was aware, what caused all this ice to melt? Obviously global temperature adjustments of some sort have been happening for a very long time. It’s not a man made thing, it’s a global made thing.

According to the National Climate Data Center for the U.S. Department of Commerce web site: Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Less the 1 degree in over 100 years? .13 degrees per decade for the last 5? And some areas have actually cooled off? That’s global warming? My body temperature varies more than that. Should I have somebody check my ozone hole? Somebody’s blowing smoke up our kilt here. With all the smoking bans in place to protect us from the fake scientific results of second hand smoke I’m surprised nobody is pitching a fit.

I keep hearing about the “fragile ecosystem”. Doesn’t that statement fly in the face of the theory of evolution? The ecosystem is not fragile, it’s fluid. It adjusts up and down and the plants, animals and continents adjust along with it. I hear that if the temperature rises even 3 degrees it could melt the polar ice caps. Seeing as the average summer temperature is + 4 degrees and the average winter temperature is -43 degrees below zero in the arctic I’m guessing those ice caps are pretty safe. They say it will melt the glaciers and the melted water will raise sea levels. Not that I particularly care living in the Midwest, but if water expands when it freezes, and a glacier is actually a slow moving river of ice, wouldn’t its melting actually make sea levels go down? There are a lot of people who took Al Gore’s lead and are putting themselves in a position to make some serious cash from the dubious claim of global warming. It’s all about the money not whether the polar bears are going to have to evolve into a slightly less polar variety.

Like I said, I am no scientist. But all this supposed science sounds like something I have seen before. It’s completely organic, 100% recyclable and comes out of the north end of a south bound bull. As for building my hopes for December and January golf in Illinois, thanks for nothing.